C-grunt
Member
Well I went and saw the movie 300 last night. It is awesome. They even included the "Molon Labe" Obviously not in Greek. Also it definitely is not for children....lots of nudity and bloody violence.
300 Movie
- Thread starter C-grunt
- Start date
- Status
Geegolly
Member
I went and saw it last night aswell. All I can say about it is, WOW.
Especially loved this...
Spartans lay down your weapons
Come and get them
Especially loved this...
Spartans lay down your weapons
Come and get them
Totaly fake movie, entirely innacurate portrayal of every single aspect of not only the battle, but the tactics, the movements, the gear, nevermind remotely resembling Spartan culture or beliefs.
The movie was designed to appeal to emotions, not portray anything that actualy happened, a way of life, or even a people.
The people of Sparta would be nearly impossible for modern people to relate to if accurately displayed, so they are displayed in entirely inaccurate ways so the target audience can emotional relate and buy into it.
Glad you enjoyed it, but just remember it is not even loosely based on reality, it is based on a entirely fictional comic book.
The movie was designed to appeal to emotions, not portray anything that actualy happened, a way of life, or even a people.
The people of Sparta would be nearly impossible for modern people to relate to if accurately displayed, so they are displayed in entirely inaccurate ways so the target audience can emotional relate and buy into it.
Glad you enjoyed it, but just remember it is not even loosely based on reality, it is based on a entirely fictional comic book.
Cesiumsponge
Member
It was an entertainment movie, not a documentary. I would hope that was obvious. Did you cry about the giant fat guy with sawblade arms or the Smeagol-looking character as being historically inaccurate too?
Sorry, I couldn't help it. It's a great movie with a great theme. Take it for what it is--entertainment.
OP
OP
C-grunt
Member
The fact that it was made by the same guy who did "Sin City" and also being based off a comic book......I wasnt expecting it to be historically accurate. But it was an amazing movie and definitely one of my all time favorites.
TCB in TN
Member
Great movie, had more fun and left with a BIG SMILE! 
It isn't historicly accurate, but name one movie that really is. Hollywood is there to entertain, as long as they do that and don't "CLAIM" to be educating we are all right. It is when they start trying to say they are telling the "true" story that I worry.
It isn't historicly accurate, but name one movie that really is. Hollywood is there to entertain, as long as they do that and don't "CLAIM" to be educating we are all right. It is when they start trying to say they are telling the "true" story that I worry.
The difference being people are quoting real lines, said by real people, during a real battle being entirely falsely portrayed. The references you cite never hinted even remotely at anything in history. They were fiction for fictions sake.
It is not even an innacurate portrayal of a real event, it is a fake event with references to something real in history. So it is more than misleading to uninformed.
There is fake fictional movies that at least attempt some level of fictional control even though they are not historicaly accurate and do well. Gladiator or Troy come to mind as good movies that sold well without becoming excessively fictitious.
This movie is total crap, I certainly hope low budget, and not worth citing on a gun forum as the only thing relevant is not even accurately portrayed.
Bazooka Joe71
Member
I definately want to see this "total crap" of a movie!
But what does The Battle of Thermopylae have to do with with guns?
But what does The Battle of Thermopylae have to do with with guns?
'Card
Member
Let's lighten up on the 'historically accurate' bit, OK? That's a relevant point if you're talking about Braveheart, because people come out of movies like that with the fraudulent belief that they have now acquired some actual knowledge regarding actual events that may have actually happened.
300 is an entirely different animal. The fact that it's highly stylized, looks more like a music video, and has... you know, monsters in it - will prevent any but those most critically unencumbered by the thought process from getting the impression that this represents actual historical events.
And if it inspires just a few kids to look up what really happened at the Battle of Thermopylae? Then it's all good in my book.
300 is an entirely different animal. The fact that it's highly stylized, looks more like a music video, and has... you know, monsters in it - will prevent any but those most critically unencumbered by the thought process from getting the impression that this represents actual historical events.
And if it inspires just a few kids to look up what really happened at the Battle of Thermopylae? Then it's all good in my book.
But what does The Battle of Thermopylae have to do with with guns?
To the gun rights people it has to do with arms. However I would venture that it is actualy a very bad example of a people to highlight for RKBA.
They had an entirely slave population who they routinely terrorized to keep them subordinate and submissive. Had rights of passage that included sending young boys out into the night to kill members of the slave population.
Newborn babies were bathed in alcoholic wine to see if they were strong enough to survive it. If they did then they were eligible for inspection by the elders, who if they found any flaws put the baby outside for the animals to eat.
Men were fined for not taking boy lovers. It was expected that men be active pedophiles and mentors of a boy as it was believed to help create a stronger positive influance. Women were expected to do the same, though they were not legaly bound or fined for not doing it.
The men were very feminine by todays standards, combing thier hair before battles, engaging in bisexual relationships, etc which actualy probably was a major contributor in thier sense of duty and valor to eachother as they were emotional and physical lovers. They even excercised naked with oil for the sole purpose of being more sexualy attractive to eachother than without oil or wearing clothes.
However they were also extremely honorable. A famous example is this story:
"An elderly man was trying to find a place to sit and observe the Olympic Games, as he went to each section. All the other Greeks laughed as he tried to make his way through. Some ignored him. Upon entering the Spartan section all the Spartans stood and offered the elderly man their seats. Suddenly the entire stadium applauded. All the Greeks knew what was the right thing to do, but the Spartans were the only ones who did it."
All in all the very things that define who a society is and the values and family unit were different and unrelatable to modern society, so could not be accurately displayed and still sell to the target audience of guy movies. I would probably find it repulsive myself even enjoying the historical accuracy and portrayal. However the actual battle I would have highly enjoyed, even with some emotional theatrics.
Then there is the tactics. Spartans had very large shields, very different than those employed in the movie. This was a necessity for the tactics used by them and the formations they used. They did not charge in or run around like macho individuals as in the movie. In fact to do so would have been a serious dishonor to Sparta and fellow soldiers punishable by death and the man protected by your shield would have been exposed. The symbol fo the shield and its purpose was sacred to Spartans, even to the extent of being presented to them by thier wives upon leaving with the phrase "With this, or upon this" refering to the fact that no soldier should return to Sparta alive without his shield. This is because the very large shields were heavy and escaping while carrying such a heavy thing was nearly impossible. Also to discard or lose your shield meant you were not only a dishonorable coward, but you let down the fellow soldiers dependent on your shield for protection in formation. The Spartan Phalanx was the primary formation used for fighting, and is extremely dependent on everyone having a shield, however such a formation does not lend itself to theatrics and exciting screenplay, nor does such a large cumbersome shield.
Even the physical build of the men was innacurate showing predominantly large men with gym and weight lifting builds like a typical action hero, which in a time of limited logistics and days and days of marching was not caloricly possible. Most men of sparta were long and lean, carrying heavy gear many miles eating minimal food, just like many other soldiers of the time period.
So the entire thing is just a bunch of macho BS designed to appeal to such emotions. No different than many other movies, except that it is refering to real life events. I can enjoy a macho BS flick myself, however not when it portrays such a coveted military success falsely. There is not many such decisive extreme examples of military achievement so when they screw up one so severely it is unfortunate.
I imagine some people would feel the same about a fake fictional representation of the Alamo. It dishonors soldiers and men who died for something they believed in and were so successful doing so to falsely represent thier struggle when it is easy not to do so.
To the gun rights people it has to do with arms. However I would venture that it is actualy a very bad example of a people to highlight for RKBA.
They had an entirely slave population who they routinely terrorized to keep them subordinate and submissive. Had rights of passage that included sending young boys out into the night to kill members of the slave population.
Newborn babies were bathed in alcoholic wine to see if they were strong enough to survive it. If they did then they were eligible for inspection by the elders, who if they found any flaws put the baby outside for the animals to eat.
Men were fined for not taking boy lovers. It was expected that men be active pedophiles and mentors of a boy as it was believed to help create a stronger positive influance. Women were expected to do the same, though they were not legaly bound or fined for not doing it.
The men were very feminine by todays standards, combing thier hair before battles, engaging in bisexual relationships, etc which actualy probably was a major contributor in thier sense of duty and valor to eachother as they were emotional and physical lovers. They even excercised naked with oil for the sole purpose of being more sexualy attractive to eachother than without oil or wearing clothes.
However they were also extremely honorable. A famous example is this story:
"An elderly man was trying to find a place to sit and observe the Olympic Games, as he went to each section. All the other Greeks laughed as he tried to make his way through. Some ignored him. Upon entering the Spartan section all the Spartans stood and offered the elderly man their seats. Suddenly the entire stadium applauded. All the Greeks knew what was the right thing to do, but the Spartans were the only ones who did it."
All in all the very things that define who a society is and the values and family unit were different and unrelatable to modern society, so could not be accurately displayed and still sell to the target audience of guy movies. I would probably find it repulsive myself even enjoying the historical accuracy and portrayal. However the actual battle I would have highly enjoyed, even with some emotional theatrics.
Then there is the tactics. Spartans had very large shields, very different than those employed in the movie. This was a necessity for the tactics used by them and the formations they used. They did not charge in or run around like macho individuals as in the movie. In fact to do so would have been a serious dishonor to Sparta and fellow soldiers punishable by death and the man protected by your shield would have been exposed. The symbol fo the shield and its purpose was sacred to Spartans, even to the extent of being presented to them by thier wives upon leaving with the phrase "With this, or upon this" refering to the fact that no soldier should return to Sparta alive without his shield. This is because the very large shields were heavy and escaping while carrying such a heavy thing was nearly impossible. Also to discard or lose your shield meant you were not only a dishonorable coward, but you let down the fellow soldiers dependent on your shield for protection in formation. The Spartan Phalanx was the primary formation used for fighting, and is extremely dependent on everyone having a shield, however such a formation does not lend itself to theatrics and exciting screenplay, nor does such a large cumbersome shield.
Even the physical build of the men was innacurate showing predominantly large men with gym and weight lifting builds like a typical action hero, which in a time of limited logistics and days and days of marching was not caloricly possible. Most men of sparta were long and lean, carrying heavy gear many miles eating minimal food, just like many other soldiers of the time period.
So the entire thing is just a bunch of macho BS designed to appeal to such emotions. No different than many other movies, except that it is refering to real life events. I can enjoy a macho BS flick myself, however not when it portrays such a coveted military success falsely. There is not many such decisive extreme examples of military achievement so when they screw up one so severely it is unfortunate.
I imagine some people would feel the same about a fake fictional representation of the Alamo. It dishonors soldiers and men who died for something they believed in and were so successful doing so to falsely represent thier struggle when it is easy not to do so.
daysleeprx
Member
I really question how some people ever loosen up and have a good time.
If you want an accurate portrayal of history, go watch a documentary.
As an aside, the director of 300 even admitted that he purposely made many parts of the film historically inaccurate, so that the movie would just be more fun to watch.
Christianninja
Member
Whether it was to do with RKBA or not is irrelevant when it comes to the quality of the movie.
How does the fact that it uses real-life inspiration suddenly mean it must be 100% accurate? Or even 90%? Or any level?
People enjoy fiction because it's just that: fiction. And all fiction is inspired at least in part by actual events/observations, so at what volume of real-world inspiration does it become necesarry to achieve absolute realism?
I could see your point if the film claimed to be "based on real events", but the claim isn't made. The entire point of the film is seperation from the actual, stylized representation of a horrible thing such as war in a romantic light- taken to the extreme of beauty.
Saying this film is terrible because it is historically inaccurate is the entertainment equivolant of a straw man argument- you propose that such a film expounds historical accuracy, or at least has an inherent duty to it- then proceed to say it is bad because it falls short of that. In reality, it neither claims or has duty to historical realism- it is a monster-filled film adaptation of a comic.
How does the fact that it uses real-life inspiration suddenly mean it must be 100% accurate? Or even 90%? Or any level?
People enjoy fiction because it's just that: fiction. And all fiction is inspired at least in part by actual events/observations, so at what volume of real-world inspiration does it become necesarry to achieve absolute realism?
I could see your point if the film claimed to be "based on real events", but the claim isn't made. The entire point of the film is seperation from the actual, stylized representation of a horrible thing such as war in a romantic light- taken to the extreme of beauty.
Saying this film is terrible because it is historically inaccurate is the entertainment equivolant of a straw man argument- you propose that such a film expounds historical accuracy, or at least has an inherent duty to it- then proceed to say it is bad because it falls short of that. In reality, it neither claims or has duty to historical realism- it is a monster-filled film adaptation of a comic.
'Card
Member
Would anyone else like to throw in a bunch of irrelevant information about Spartans in order to demonstrate their ability to read an article? Or has Zoog pretty much cornered the 'I can consume and regurgitate text and therefore I must be right' angle?
*shrug*
Dude, lighten up - it has monsters in it.
As far as the Alamo reference, the reason people would find it offensive if it got Frank Miller's fantasy workover is that (for some inexplicable reason) we still have Texans rattling around. 500 years from now nobody will care - kind of like how nobody cares today if they make a movie about Thermopylae with, you know... monsters in it.
*shrug*
Dude, lighten up - it has monsters in it.
As far as the Alamo reference, the reason people would find it offensive if it got Frank Miller's fantasy workover is that (for some inexplicable reason) we still have Texans rattling around. 500 years from now nobody will care - kind of like how nobody cares today if they make a movie about Thermopylae with, you know... monsters in it.
gdvan01
Member
The History Channel is airing now a show on the Persian army's invasion of Greece. Just an FYI for those interested.
CountGlockula
Member
I just saw it 30 minutes ago...AWESOME!!!
Especially all the battle scenes: Braveheart on steroids baby!!!
Especially all the battle scenes: Braveheart on steroids baby!!!
I thought it was a great action movie.
I also realize that it was over the top and not really accurate. This is the movie form of a Greek pot with a painting of a soldier on the side. If you look at Greek artwork and storytelling from the time the deeds of heroes are very exagerated, this is the culture that gave us the story of Heracles killing a 12 headed monster. I can imagine some of the critics now transported back to ancient Athens. "Heracles didn't kill a 12 headed monster, it's total BS boo hoo." Who cares, the movie was enjoyable and was visually very impressive.
P.S. IBTL
I also realize that it was over the top and not really accurate. This is the movie form of a Greek pot with a painting of a soldier on the side. If you look at Greek artwork and storytelling from the time the deeds of heroes are very exagerated, this is the culture that gave us the story of Heracles killing a 12 headed monster. I can imagine some of the critics now transported back to ancient Athens. "Heracles didn't kill a 12 headed monster, it's total BS boo hoo." Who cares, the movie was enjoyable and was visually very impressive.
P.S. IBTL
Brian Dale
Member
Great movie.
They used the lines that I learned as a schoolboy--"with your shield, or on it;" "then we will fight in the shade;" "Come and get them!"--to illustrate the points that the movie made. It must have been a good comic book, even if different from factual history (or Herodotus, take your pick), because it's a rockin' good movie.
Let's see: Protecting freedom, justice, liberty and reason against tyranny and mysticism. Whatever could that have to do with a forum devoted to discussion of the right to keep and bear arms?
Connect the dots.
They used the lines that I learned as a schoolboy--"with your shield, or on it;" "then we will fight in the shade;" "Come and get them!"--to illustrate the points that the movie made. It must have been a good comic book, even if different from factual history (or Herodotus, take your pick), because it's a rockin' good movie.
Let's see: Protecting freedom, justice, liberty and reason against tyranny and mysticism. Whatever could that have to do with a forum devoted to discussion of the right to keep and bear arms?
Connect the dots.
nwilliams
Member
What a great movie I saw it yesterday and was blown away by the visuals and spectacular fight scenes. The monsters may have been a bit overblown but if you saw the History Channels documentary about the making of the movie you can understand why they did it. I appriciated the fact that they were trying to bring alive the mythology of the event and not worry as much about historical accuracy. For all those critics out there who are bashing this movie, I still don't care what you have to say
Amen brother!
texascarl
Member
Enjoyed the movie. Meanwhile, box office shows the hoplites are raking in the dough, much to the chagrin of hoplophobes everywhere. Hear that wailing and gnashing of teeth? Music to my ears.
MrPeter
Member
It was an awesome movie. I laughed and said, "YES!" out loud when they said, "Come and get them!"
I then had to explain quietly the reason for the outburst.
I saw the midnight showing! woot!
I then had to explain quietly the reason for the outburst.
I saw the midnight showing! woot!
Sharps-shooter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 488
I haven't seen the movie yet, and I don't know if I will. The whole look and feel of it seemed very video-arcadish to me.
But I will say something. I've just re-read the histories of herodotus (found a cheap copy at barnes and noble), and IT ISN"T HISTORICALLY ACCURATE EITHER. So there. (and it also has monsters in it.)
It was never meant to be historically accurate, not even 2400 years ago. The stories are there to inspire courage, and other qualities of a decent human being.
I'm glad to hear that they included some of the really good lines like the bit about fighting in the shade.
But I will say something. I've just re-read the histories of herodotus (found a cheap copy at barnes and noble), and IT ISN"T HISTORICALLY ACCURATE EITHER. So there. (and it also has monsters in it.)
It was never meant to be historically accurate, not even 2400 years ago. The stories are there to inspire courage, and other qualities of a decent human being.
I'm glad to hear that they included some of the really good lines like the bit about fighting in the shade.
Actualy the Persians around 480 BC where more free and had more equality amongst eachother than the Helots of Sparta, or even the Spartans themselves who had every single aspect of thier lives governed by law from birth, from hair length, to profession, to exactly what they would be doing at a given age etc etc.
The Persians however had many bad practices themselves, yet if I had to choose to be born a random member of one or the other your chances of a good life and freedom were far better as a Persian.
So it was really not about who was right and wrong, or freedom and liberty, simply who won. In fact under Zoroastrianism the Persians of the time had beliefs and a lifestyle more similar to life as mentioned in the Old Testament and similar values than the pagan Spartans. Thier society reflected this as well. This is still almost a thousand years before Islam would take over the region.
The Persians had a currency system and Capitalism, the Spartans tried to reduce that and create what would be called a very extreme form of socialism for the Spartans, made capable by the much larger slave population of the Helots. They were limited to trading with Iron bars intentional so as to reduce how much wealth a person could have.
No I think most people would have rather been Persian than Spartan if they could travel back in time and compare the two. Persian lifestyle would be closer to something a modern person could relate to than Sparta. Very few people in Sparta had the RKBA, since the majority were slaves.
- Status
Similar threads
